A Spaniard, a Mexican and six from the States and somehow we are always hearing about Russian Oligarchs.
Now all we need is eight bullets. Just for starters.
There's a centuries-long history of politically motivated assassinations, both of rich men and of political leaders. It has been tried.
Usually somebody else takes their place. That's why nonviolent methods are best, as Gandhi points out.
Oxfam only used individuals with well-documented wealth from sources such a tax returns. Russian oligarchs don't divulge their wealth. But Russia certainly in the top 4 large countries with the greatest wealth inequality in the world. There is little doubt that if you added Putin and his closest associates to the other six and you would have 10 individuals with the wealth of 3/4 of humanity.
Russia is a model of the economics and politics that the US has been moving toward.
True. And since today is a MLK holiday, it is incumbent to point out that MLK jr. also advocated non-violence.
It might also be said that eight men own the same political representation as the poorest half of humanity........one may extend that analogy from those eight outward........
My hope is that soon humanity will scrape such excrement from its shoes/feet and begin to build a sustainable future for all......
No, we need to replace the system, not the people.
My point was that the wealthy in the west are not commonly called oligarchs which has become a pejorative term for wealthy Russians.
Well, I call them all oligharchs and plutocrats, and I'm sure you do too. So I think we should worry less about what others don't call them.
Consider the following syllogism:
Person A calls Person B a bad person
Person A is a bad person
therefore, Person B must be a good person.
Nonviolent methods ARE best. But history shows that a people oppressed long enough with no other recourse WILL resort to violence -- it's not even "revolution" so much as it is an act of "self defense."
The onus is on the ruling class who have sought (with great success) in closing off all "legal" means of having a voice in a sham democracy in which Dems and Repubs represent the ruling class, but not us lowly plebs. They collaborate (consciously or not) by leaving the capitalist economy unquestioned.
Now, having no other options available, history shows what results. It's ugly and usually spirals out of control-- but when options are shrinking, what do they expect? This is not a threat, but the inevitable outcome when certain conditions are met. And we are approaching those conditions.
The ruling class can't part with a bit of money or even acknowledge the common good? That's hubris that they will bring on themselves-- just as the French aristocracy did in the late 18th century. This is the future we're headed for, so the ruling class ought not be surprised when the day comes.
The ruling class of capitalism IS the system. Therein lies the problem.
Rousseau was no revolutionary, but that didn't stop him from making this important observation:
"When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich."
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."-JFK
I think that says far more succinctly my more long-winded explanation.
No, no, you said it well. Discourse is always good. I read Ward Churchill's essay "Pacifism as Pathology." It was amazing. No wonder they went after him. I think MLK was beginning to understand this also, before he was murdered. Eugene Debs talked about it as well.
My Buddhist friend always remind me, when talking about these people ( using Bill Gates as an example ), that you have to admire what they've created and acknowledge what they have repressed. Bill has made Microsoft and its' operating system as common as a Big Mac, but what has that created and what has it repressed?
In the case of the Big Mac it's pretty clear the answer is probably convenience, mostly. And, lots of bad eating habits associated with health issues , etc. And, the creation of numerous other detrimental things, including the demise of neighborhood cafes and community meeting and visiting places.
For Bill Gates and Microsoft I'll let someone much geekier than me tell me what Ol' Bill's repressed.
Anyone with any intelligence at all knows that this is wrong, immoral, unjust, pathetic, etc. Why is it then that Bernie Sanders is the only prominent politician talking about wealth inequality and the rich paying their fair share? Something is really wrong when none of the rich and powerful realize that they are screwing everybody else, when it is so obvious. Too many Americans accept this outrageous theft of their resources.
Well, now your're talking.
Too many Murkins are illiterate.